- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:30:17 -0400
- To: User Agent Working Group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/08/28-ua-minutes.html
Text of the Minutes:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
28 Aug 2013
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2013/08/28-ua-irc
Attendees
Present
Jeanne, Kim, Kelly, Jan, Jim, Greg
Regrets
Chair
Jim Kelly
Scribe
greg
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]OCAD8 re 1.3.2
2. [5]JF2 re 1.1.1
3. [6]OCAD7 re 1.2.1
4. [7]EO38 re 1.3.1
5. [8]AR1 re Definition of compliance level
6. [9]AR2 definition of user agent
7. [10]EO22 re "What Qualifies As A User Agent"
* [11]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
Greg: "The user can resize viewports within restrictions
imposed by the platform."
... "The user can resize viewports within restrictions imposed
by the platform, overriding any values specified by the
author."
<Jan> 1.8.3 Resize Viewport: Users can maximize the size of
top-level viewports up to the size of the display even if the
author has specified a smaller size. (Level A)
<Jan> 1.8.3 Resize Viewport: The user can resize viewports
within restrictions imposed by the platform, overriding any
values specified by the author. (Level A)
Resolution: Accept wording 1.8.3 Resize Viewport: The user can
resize viewports within restrictions imposed by the platform,
overriding any values specified by the author. (Level A)
OCAD8 re 1.3.2
Options: When highlighting classes specified by 1.3.1
Highlighted Items, the user can specify highlighting options
that include at least: (Level AA) (a) foreground colors, (b)
background colors, and (c) borders (configurable color, style,
and thickness)
OCAD8: This seems like too much configurability, especially if
the user agent developer has chosen highlighting styling to
maximize visibility within the widest variety of possible
content situations. Fluid UIOptions for example enlarges input
fields and makes images underlined and bold.
Resolution: Keep 1.3.2 as it is, because even though many UA
developers may think they have chosen a good default
highlighting option, there will be users who will require
further customization.
<trackbot> Date: 28 August 2013
<scribe> Scribe: greg
JF2 re 1.1.1
1.1.1 Render Alternative Content: For any content element, the
user can choose to render any types of recognized alternative
content that are present. (Level A)
JF2 - [needs proposal] we will consider adding an example in
the Implementation guide for <acronym>.
JF2: is there something that speaks to this use-case: <abbr
title=”World Wide Consortium”>W3C</abbr>?)
<jeanne> Latest draft <-
[12]http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130827/MasterUAAG
20130828.html
[12]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130827/MasterUAAG20130828.html
Examples of accessibility benefits of ABBR include: when using
speech recognition it's easier to enter actual words into the
search field than a series of capitalized letters; people with
some types of dyslexia have difficulty parsing or recognizing
strings of seemingly random characters; some users with low
vision have difficulty recognizing strings of characters that
are written in all...
scribe: upper case; ...
Greg: "Laura has impaired vision and uses the shapes of words
to help her recognize them easily. It is more difficult for her
to read strings of seemingly random upper case letters than
strings of familiar words written with only their initial
letters capitalized, so she changes her preference settings to
have all abbreviations replaced by their expanded strings."
<AllanJ> proposal: Sheila has a reading disorder and has
problems decoding acronyms. Because her browser has a setting
that allows the expansion of acronyms, all acronyms in the
document are revealed by default.
<Kim> Carly has repetitive strain injuries and uses speech
recognition to communicate with the computer. She's a paralegal
and often has to search long documents for terms that are
rendered as acronyms. It is much easier for her to speak the
full terms into the search box rather than the acronyms because
it's easier for her to speak the full names, and also allows
her to keep her vocabulary less...
<Kim> ...cluttered by acronyms that may increase
misrecognitions. She chooses a setting on her browser that
automatically expands all acronyms before she does a search.
<Jan>
[13]http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/meaning-located.h
tml
[13] http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/meaning-located.html
<Kim> Carly has repetitive strain injuries and uses speech
recognition to communicate with her computer. She's a paralegal
and often has to search long documents for terms that are
rendered as acronyms. It's easier for her to speak full terms
into the search box rather than acronyms because full terms are
easier to say and better recognized, and this allows her to
keep her vocabulary less...
<Kim> ...cluttered by acronyms that may increase
misrecognitions. She chooses a setting on her browser that
automatically expands all acronyms before she does a search.
Resolved: Add to 1.1.1 Examples "Laura has impaired vision and
uses the shapes of words to help her recognize them easily. It
is more difficult for her to read strings of seemingly random
upper case letters than strings of familiar words written with
only their initial letters capitalized, so she changes her
preference settings to have all abbreviations replaced by their
expanded strings."...
scribe: and ""Carly has repetitive strain injuries and uses
speech recognition to communicate with her computer. She's a
paralegal and often has to search long documents for terms that
are rendered as acronyms. It's easier for her to speak full
terms into the search box rather than acronyms because full
terms are easier to say and better recognized, and this allows
her to keep her vocabulary less...
... cluttered by acronyms that may increase misrecognitions.
She chooses a setting on her browser that automatically expands
all acronyms before she does a search."
<AllanJ> related resource for abbr expansion extension:
[14]http://firefox.cita.illinois.edu/txtequiv/expandabbr.php
[14] http://firefox.cita.illinois.edu/txtequiv/expandabbr.php
Resolved: Add to 1.1.1 Related Resources the Firefox extension
"Text Equivalent Expand Abbreviations"
Resolution: Add to 1.1.1 Related Resources the Firefox
extension "Text Equivalent Expand Abbreviations"
... Add to 1.1.1 Examples "Carly has repetitive strain injuries
and uses speech recognition to communicate with her computer.
She's a paralegal and often has to search long documents for
terms that are rendered as acronyms. It's easier for her to
speak full terms into the search box rather than acronyms
because full terms are often easier to say and better
recognized, and this allows her...
... to keep her vocabulary less cluttered by acronyms that may
increase misrecognitions. She chooses a setting on her browser
that automatically expands all acronyms before she does a
search."
... Add to 1.1.1 Examples "Laura has impaired vision and uses
the shapes of words to help her recognize them easily. It is
more difficult for her to read strings of seemingly random
upper case letters than strings of familiar words written with
only their initial letters capitalized, so she changes her
preference settings to have all abbreviations replaced by their
expanded strings."
OCAD7 re 1.2.1
1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies: If text
alternatives for non-text content are missing or empty then
both of the following are true: (Level AA) (a) the user agent
does not attempt to repair the text alternatives with text
values that are also available to assistive technologies. (b)
the user agent makes metadata related to the non-text content
available programmatically (and...
scribe: not via fields reserved for text alternatives).
OCAD7: ATAG SC on which this was once based is now more clear
(B.2.3.2)...rules out "No Generic or Irrelevant Strings:
Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g.,
the file name, file format) are not used as text alternatives"
Kelly: The title of Guideline 1.1 mixes singular and plural.
Jan: The UA should not repair something that can mislead the
screen reader into thinking that is actual author-supplied
alternative content, when it might be wrong.
<Jan> 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies: If text
alternatives for non-text content are missing or empty then
both of the following are true: (Level AA) (a) the user agent
does not attempt to repair the text alternatives with generic
strings (e.g., "image") or irrelevant strings (e.g., file name,
file format). (b) the user agent makes metadata related to the
non-text content available...
<Jan> ...programmatically (and not via fields reserved for text
alternatives).
Greg: how about "(b) if the user agent makes available metadata
related to non-text content (e.g. the Creator attribute in an
image's IPTC data structure) available progammatically, it is
not done by inserting the information into fields reserved for
text alterantives (e.g. the MSAA Description field)."
Jan: The example about Ray is incorrect, as it reads like an
example of what should be done, when it's an example of what
should not be done.
<Jan> Ray is blind and counts on alternative text descriptions
for images. Sometimes image file names can be helpful (e.g.
red-canoe.png), but often they are not (e.g. 123.png). Because
the browser does not use file names to set the accessible label
for images without text alternatives, Rays' screen reader can
attempt more advanced repair techniques, such as optical
character recognition (OCR).
<Jan> Ray is blind and counts on alternative text descriptions
for images. Sometimes image file names can be helpful (e.g.
red-canoe.png), but often they are not (e.g. 123.png). Because
the browser does not use file names to set the accessible label
for images without text alternatives, Ray's screen reader can
attempt more advanced repair techniques, such as optical
character recognition (OCR).
kford: It's important for the screen reader to be able to get
the file name, when the user wants to read it. But it's
important not to fool the screen reader into thinking the
repair text is author-provided alternatives.
<Jan> Ray is blind and counts on alternative text descriptions
for images. Sometimes image file names can be helpful (e.g.
red-canoe.png), but often they are not (e.g. 123.png). Because
the browser does not use file names to set the accessible name
for images without text alternatives, Ray's screen reader can
use the file name from the DOM if Ray requests this or attempt
more advanced repair...
<Jan> ...techniques, such as optical character recognition
(OCR).
<Kim> how about "(b) if the user agent makes metadata that is
related to non-text content available progammatically this
content does not co-opt fields reserved for text alterantives
(e.g. the Creator attribute in an image's IPTC data structure
is not inserted into the MSAA Description field)."
<Jan> (b) if the user agent makes metadata related to non-text
content available progammatically, this content does not misuse
fields reserved for text alternatives (e.g. the Creator
attribute in an image's IPTC data structure is not inserted
into the MSAA Description field).
Jan: It seems that (a) and (b) are redundant to each other.
Greg: (a) is about repair text in the DOM, while (b) is about
how information is made available through platform
accessibility API.
<Jan> 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies: If text
alternatives for non-text content are missing or empty then
both of the following are true: (Level AA)
Greg: At least that's how I interpret the two clauses in the
SC.
<Jan> (a) the user agent does not attempt to repair the text
alternatives with generic strings (e.g., "image") or irrelevant
strings (e.g., file name, file format).
<Jan> (b) if the user agent makes metadata related to non-text
content available progammatically, this content does not misuse
fields reserved for text alternatives (e.g. the Creator
attribute in an image's IPTC data structure is not inserted
into the MSAA Description field).
<Jan> 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies: If text
alternatives for non-text content are missing or empty, then
the user agent does not attempt to repair the text alternatives
with generic strings (e.g., "image") or irrelevant strings
(e.g., file name, file format) ....
When an attribute in the DOM or a field in the platform
accessibility API is designed to hold author-specified text
alternatives, do not put any other data such as generic or
irrelevant strings (e.g. "image", the file name, the file
format, or other values from an image's metadata).
<Jan> When an attribute in the DOM or a field in the platform
accessibility API is designed to hold author-specified text
alternatives, the user agent does not fill these with generic
or irrelevant strings (e.g. "image", file name).
<Jan> ACTION: Jan and Greg to propose rewording for 1.2.1
Support Repair by Assistive Technologies [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2013/08/28-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-875 - And greg to propose rewording
for 1.2.1 support repair by assistive technologies [on Jan
Richards - due 2013-09-04].
<Jan> OCAD7 and EO31
EO38 re 1.3.1
1.3.1 Highlighted Items: The user can specify that the
following classes be highlighted so that each is uniquely
distinguished: (Level A) (a) selection (b) active keyboard
focus (indicated by focus cursors and/or text cursors) (c)
recognized enabled input elements (distinguished from disabled
elements) (d) elements with alternative content (e) recently
visited links
EO38 (Implementing) Should "hover" be included in the list of
1.3.1 classes where highlighting is user controlled? Or would
this be the same as "selection"?
Kim: What a speech user really wants is to highlight all the
hoverable items, but that's not what this is about.
Jeanne: Had trouble coming up with accessibility use cases
demonstrating significant benefit of customizing the hover
hightlight.
<AllanJ> hover is not available from the keyboard. a hover
state can be done with :focus or :active in CSS
Greg: A use case would be if I'm using MouseKeys to laboriously
position the mouse pointer over what appears to be a button,
but the actual clickable area is just the text in the middle of
the button, it can take trial and error to move the mouse,
click, nothing happens, move it again, click again, repeat.
Getting feedback of when the mouse pointer is over the
clickable region is very useful.
Jan: We already have the ability to highlight all the enabled
elements, which would show you the boundaries of the element
you're trying to click on.
Resolution: Proposal not accepted; we feel that changing the
highlighting of recognized enabled input elements will cover
most of the cases where things are hoverable, and the remainder
are edge cases.
AR1 re Definition of compliance level
JAllan: Will write a response based on Greg's comments on
yesterday, that things the developer cannot control (e.g. OS or
hardware) can be used for N/A exemption, but things under the
control of the developer (e.g. the choice between available
sets of widgets) are not, as the developer can choose compliant
or non-compliant toolkits, and that choice has consequences.
<AllanJ> discussion of tools used to develop the UA does not
exempt the UA from meeting the requirements of UAAG
<AllanJ> the use of tools that do not allow or inhibit the
creation of accessible user agents is not an exemption to
meeting any success criteria in UAAG
Jan: Can we just change the definition of Platform to reflect
the limit?
Greg: Possibly, but have to make sure that works for all
occurrences of Platform in the document.
Jan: Need to exempt not just OS and Hardware, but also things
like Java.
Greg: Correct, really OS, Hardware, and Operating Environments
(e.g. Gnome)
... But NOT including toolkits, widget sets, and development
tools.
... The latter are platform for some purposes (e.g. providing
API for higher level code) but not for purposes of the Not
Applicable Due To Platform Limitations compliance code.
<Jan> Proposed reply to AR1... The group accepts that the
wording for platform limitations was too narrow. Instead we
will link to the definition of "platform" which includes host
user agents, cross-OS environments (e.g. Java). However, the
group also feels that the platform limitation should not extend
to poor choices of UI component toolkits so this has been
clarified in the definition of platform.
Greg: I don't see any occurrences of "platform" that would be
negatively impacted by limiting the definition to just OS,
operating environment, and hardware.
<Jan> Proposed change to Defn of Platform: platform
<Jan> The software and hardware environment(s) within which the
user agent operates. Platforms provide a consistent operational
environment. There may be layers of software in an hardware
architecture and each layer may be considered a platform.
Non-web-based platforms include desktop operating system (e.g.,
Linux, MacOS, Windows, etc.), mobile operating systems (e.g.,
Android, Blackberry, iOS,...
<Jan> ...Windows Phone, etc.), and cross-OS environments (e.g.,
Java). Web-based platforms are other user agents. User agents
may employ server-based processing, such as web content
transformations, text-to-speech production, etc. *User
interface component toolkits are not considered platforms.*
<Jan> Note 1: A user agent may include functionality hosted on
multiple platforms (e.g., a browser running on the desktop may
include server-based pre-processing and web-based
documentation).
<Jan> Note 2: Accessibility guidelines for developers exist for
many platforms.
<Jan> Proposed change to Defn of Platform (REPLACE ALL):
platform
<Jan> The software and hardware environment(s) within which the
user agent operates. Platforms provide a consistent operational
environment. There may be layers of software in a hardware
architecture and each layer may be considered a platform.
Non-web-based platforms include desktop operating systems (e.g.
Linux, Mac OS, Windows), mobile operating systems (e.g.
Android, Blackberry OS, iOS,...
<Jan> ...Windows Phone), operating environments (e.g. GNOME,
KDE) and cross-OS environments (e.g. Java). Web-based platforms
are other user agents. User agents may employ server-based
processing, such as web content transformations and
text-to-speech production. User interface component toolkits
and control libraries are not considered platforms for the
purposes of this document.
<Jan> Note 1: A user agent may include functionality hosted on
multiple platforms (e.g. a browser running on the desktop may
include server-based pre-processing and web-based
documentation).
<Jan> Note 2: Accessibility guidelines for developers exist for
many platforms.
Resolution: Accept proposed changes to definition of platform
immediately above.
... Accept reply to AR1: The group accepts that the wording for
platform limitations was too narrow. Instead we will link to
the definition of "platform" which includes host user agents,
cross-OS environments (e.g. Java). However, the group also
feels that the platform limitation should not extend to poor
choices of UI component toolkits so this has been clarified in
the definition...
... of platform.
AR2 definition of user agent
AR2: There should also be a distinction between s/w developed
by a vendor vs s/w developed in-house using a platform
purchased from a vendor.
Resolution: UAAG20 can certainly be applied to software
developed in-house, and the working group recommends that
companies adopt UAAAG20 as an internal policy. However, UAAG20
is a set of guidelines rather than a regulatory document, and
whether a company is obligated to follow them will depend upon
their regulatory environment, internal purchasing policies,
etc.
EO22 re "What Qualifies As A User Agent"
EO22: I had trouble with the What Qualifies section. The word
order tends to make it more confusing than it needs to be. I
understand that we need to include procedural as well as
declarative languages, but is there any other kind of
programming language. Are you making your point? Are you trying
to say no programming language is excluded as a basis for
generating user interface?
JAllan: Kim and Jeanne crafted language to address this.
<AllanJ> part of introduction "what qualifies as a user agent?
.... If the following two conditions are met then an extension
or plug-in is a user agent:
<AllanJ> It is launched by, or extends the functionality of a
platform-based application, and
<AllanJ> Use of the plug-in does not exit the parent
application. [@@ EO22]
Greg: Shouldn't that be "platform based user-agent" instead of
"platform based application"?
<AllanJ>
[16]http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-201308
23/#introduction
[16]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20130823/#introduction
Jeanne: We can make it clearer by changing "If the following
three conditions are met, then a platform-based application is
a user agent:" to "A platform-based application is a user agent
If the following three conditions are met:"
General agreement on both of those changes.
Jeanne's change would be to all three lead-in paragraphs.
Resolution: In "What qualifies as a User Agent", change
"platform based application" to "platform-based user agent".
... In "What qualifies as a User Agent", change "If the
following three conditions are met, then a platform-based
application is a user agent:" to "A platform-based application
is a user agent If the following three conditions are met:",
and similarly in the other two lead-in paragraphs.
Reviewing the qualities that identify platform-based user
agents.
Currently:
If the following three conditions are met, then a
platform-based application is a user agent:
It is a standalone application, and
It interprets any W3C-specified language, and
It provides a user interface or interprets a procedural or
declarative language that may be used to provide a user
interface
Jan: What is meant by " interprets a procedural or declarative
language that may be used to provide a user interface"? Is that
meant to be inclusive or exclusive?
... These are only two types out of a very long list of
programming paradigms listed in Wikipedia.
... The glossary entry for user agent lists four non-embedded
types, whereas this section lists only three including
embedded.
JAllan: This section is in the Implementing document and is not
normative, although the glossary entry is.
Jan: ATAG has a paragraph referring the reader to the glossary
entry for the definition of authoring tool; UAAG could do the
same, rather than have both the glossary entry and this lengthy
section.
<AllanJ> the comment concerns the implementing document. it is
not normative. the glossary definition is normative. we are ok
with that definition. we do not have to address the
implementing document comment in order to reach last call
<AllanJ> we should reconcile the guidelines and implementing
document after last call.
Discussing the similarities and differences between "What
qualifies as a User Agent" and the Glossary entry for "User
Agent".
Discussion of whether "webview component" warrants being a
separate category.
Webview is a user agent that embeds into a non-user agent
application (e.g. a browser plug-in for the Eclipse IDE).
"What qualifies as a User Agent" includes things that have no
UI, and restricts extensions to those that don't exit the
parent, etc.
Resolution: remove ", mobile app" from the glossary entry for
User Agent.
Change "stand-alone, non-web-based, browser" to "platform-based
user agent"
We conceptually have two axes. First, a component can be a
media player, a browser, or a special-purpose application.
Second, any of those can be platform-based, web-based, a
plug-in for a user agent, or a webview component (that embed in
a non-user agent, e.g. a browser plug-in for the Eclipse IDE).
"A plug-in for a user agent" should be "embedded user agent".
We have three categories based on how they're used: browsers,
media players, and special-purpose applications. We have four
types of implementations: platform-based, web-based, embedded
within user agents, and embedded within non-user agents (e.g.
webview components).
<Kim> User agents fall into three categories based on how
they're used: browsers, media players, and special-purpose
applications. User agents fall into five categories based on
how they are implemented: platform-based, web-based, embedded
within user agents, and embedded within non-user agents (e.g.
webview components).
Greg: We have three categories based on how they're used:
browsers, media players, and special-purpose applications. We
have three types of implementations: platform-based, web-based,
embedded within user agents, and embedded (which can be within
user agents or other applications, and can have full UI or, in
the case of webview components, stripped down UI).
Jan: Not sure we need "special-purpose user agents", as we
ruled that airline flight info apps etc. are not UA for the
purpose of this document.
Greg: I was thinking that applications displaying airline
flight info or family tree diagrams were user agents.
Noted that Gmail and Facebook are listed as examples of
web-based user agents, and those are certainly neither media
players nor browsers, so apparently a category for
special-purpose user agent is still needed.
Greg: I wouldn't have thought Skype was a UA.
Jeanne: Skype uses WebRTC.
<jeanne> Latest Master doc <-
[17]http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130827/MasterUAAG
20130828.htm
[17]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130827/MasterUAAG20130828.htm
Agreement that Skype does not belong under "Embedded".
<jeanne> Latest Master doc <-
[18]http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130827/MasterUAAG
20130828.html
[18]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130827/MasterUAAG20130828.html
Greg: I thought that a plug-in for rendering specialized TIFF
files or medical X-ray images would be a media player, but it
doesn't meet our definition because the media is a not
time-based.
The group is reworking the glossary entry for User Agent.
Greg: I'm concerned that the definition of web-based user agent
doesn't mention the factor that defines the category for most
users: that it is rendered by another user agent.
<AllanJ> discussion of definition
<AllanJ> what is the difference between embedded user agent and
a webview component
<AllanJ> in browsers a user can input an arbitrary url, when
using a web-app they cannot. user is only allowed to view and
interact with the information that the app allows
Things to which UAAG20 would not apply:
o Basic text editors that do not process or distinguish between
web technologies (e.g. Notepad)
o Operating environments that include web toolkits and/or
stand-alone user agents (e.g. Windows, OS X, KDE, iOS)
o General-purpose platforms or toolkit that don’t use web
technologies, even though they may be used by user agents for
other purposes (e.g. Gnome, KDE, .NET Framework/CLR, iOS?)
o Non-Web extensions or plug-ins where the host is not a user
agent, but can also be hosting user agents, as long as the
extension or plug-in does not itself use web technologies and
is not designed specifically to work with other extensions or
plug-ins that do (e.g. a general-purpose add-in for the Eclipse
integrated development environment, even though it may be used
with and interact with...
scribe: the Web Tools Platform extension which adds user agent
capabilities to Eclipse).
(All of the above were from one of my documents.)
<Jan> user agent
<Jan> A user agent is any software that retrieves, renders and
facilitates end user interaction with web content. UAAG 2.0
identifies four user agent architectures:
<Jan> - Platform-based user agent, non-web-based user agent:
These user agents run on non-Web platforms (operating systems
and cross-OS platforms, such as Java) and perform content
retrieval, rendering and end-user interaction facilitation
themselves (e.g. Firefox, Internet Explorer, Chrome, Opera,
Windows Media Player, QuickTime Pro, RealPlayer).
<Jan> - Embedded user agent, plug-in: These user agents
"plug-in" to other user agents or applications (e.g. media
player plug-in for a web browser, web view component). Embedded
user agents may establish direct connections with the platform
(e.g. communication via platform accessibility services).
<Jan> - Web-based user agent: These user agents have user
interfaces that are implemented using web content technologies
and are accessed by users via a user agent. Web-based user
agents transform content into web content technologies that the
host user agent can render (e.g. Google Docs, Bing Translator,
Yahoo Mail).
<Jan> Note: Many web applications retrieve, render and
facilitate interaction with very limited data sets (e.g. online
ticket booking). In such cases, WCAG 2.0, without UAAG 2.0, may
be appropriate for assessing the application's accessibility.
<Jan> Examples of software that are generally considered user
agents under UAAG 2.0:
<Jan> - Desktop web browsers (e.g. Internet Explorer, Firefox,
Chrome, Safari, Opera)
<Jan> - Mobile web browsers (e.g. Firefox, Chrome, Safari,
Android Browser, Opera Mini, Atomic Web, Puffin)
<Jan> - Browser plug-ins (e.g. QuickTime Plug-in for Firefox,
Acrobat Reader Plug-in for Internet Explorer, Shockwave Plug-in
for Chrome)
<Jan> - Web view components (e.g. Webkit Webview component, Web
Tools Platform Plug-in for Eclipse, UIWebView for iOS)
<Jan> - Authoring tools that render the web content being
edited (e.g. Word, DreamWeaver, HTML-Kit)
<Jan> Examples of software that are not considered user agents
under UAAG 2.0 (in all cases, WCAG 2.0 still applies if the
software is web-based):
<Jan> - Operating environments or software bundles that include
platform-based user agents (e.g. Windows, OS X, KDE, iOS),
though the included user agents themselves are covered by UAAG
2.0.
<Jan> - General-purpose platforms or toolkits that don't use
web technologies, even though they may be used by user agents
for other purposes (e.g. GNOME, KDE, .NET Framework/CLR).
<Jan> - Narrow-purpose platform-based or web applications (e.g.
online ticket booking applications).
<Jan> - Authoring tools that only display a source view of the
web content being edited (e.g. Notepad, Vim).
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Jan and Greg to propose rewording for 1.2.1
Support Repair by Assistive Technologies [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2013/08/28-ua-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2013 01:30:16 UTC